It may be the biggest showdown between labor unions and the business community in decades.
Have you heard about the Employee Free Choice Act yet? You may want to learn about this one.
It’s a bill that is supposed to change the face of union organizing in this country by making it easier for unions to form.
Unions hail it as the act that will finally level the playing field between David and Goliath. And business advocates say it will bring fourth Armageddon.
Even the Obama Girl has gotten in on the Act, although it’s unclear if she knows what the heck it is:
Folks, I’m not kidding. The hyperbole on both sides is flying, but the truth lies somewhere in the more realistic middle.
Basically, the Act will allow unions to form if the majority of workers at a company or job site sign union cards, bypassing the secret ballot. It will also put limits on how long company managers can drag out the contract negotiating process; and it imposes hefty fines on employers who violate a worker’s collective bargaining rights. I’ve written extensively on the bill in this blog and for MSNBC.com.
Both sides of the fight are not being totally honest with us.
“let workers choose”
*Unions play down the fact that some employees may feel pressure to sign union cards even though they may not want union representation. Indeed, workers typically want to go along with coworkers in order to keep their daily grind a bit more harmonious. With the automatic recognition of the union after check cards are signed, employees who were anti-union will have a harder time getting their voices heard. But they still would be able to request a vote. The Act would also keep management from enlisting intimidation tactics to derail a union that often occur between a union card signing and the actual election. Also, the penalties and time limits, that are part of the Act, are long overdue as businesses have been able to skirt unionization for years with stalling tactics.
“eliminating your right to privacy”
*Business proponents claim they’re upset the privacy of workers will be hurt because of the loss of secret elections. OK, I don’t know about you guys, but employers that now scan employee email and fire workers because of things they write on their blogs at at home don’t have a leg to stand on when they say they want to ensure worker privacy. Also, no matter what opponents of the Act keep saying, there are still provisions in the legislation to allow secret ballots. The process will not be automatic anymore under the bill. And they are right, this will open the door to unionization that has been unseen for decades, and it could cause a lot of hardship and pain for businesses across the country who would be forced to take worker demands into consideration when running their operations.
The escalating rhetoric on both sides points to what will be an epic battle over the Act in Congress. President Obama told a group of AFL-CIO union leaders yesterday that he put his full backing behind the Act saying, “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” according to the Wall Street Journal today.
No matter where you stand on unions, it’s hard to deny the hit the working stiffs of this country have taken in the last 25 years. Some people believe things will get better for the rank and file if they form unions.
What do you all think? Come on people, even Obama Girl has an opinion on this, you should to.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:22 am
This is one of the things I really like about you, Eve - you’re never afraid of the tough topics.
No doubt, workers need to be respected and paid adequately. Can you get that by joining a union? As a former union member, I’d say sometimes, but not always. And while the current economy may lead people to think unions are the way to more pay, it’s not always so.
Employers have a duty to be fair to employees and pay them appropriately. People aren’t faceless numbers - they have families, friends, homes and make up the community in which a business is based. A poor economy isn’t a license to take advantage of workers.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Every state has labor laws which vary according to historical elements of the region in which you inhabit. In Pennsylvania, we are and have been a ‘work at will’ state. An employer may terminate you for any reason or for no reason. A labor contract for a collective bargaining unit, or a group of people bound by rules for and of employment, or a UNION is a legal and binding document as long as a labor union is recognized by the employer. There are also labor contracts of personal services for individuals and groups that are just as valid. The key is that you must be legally recognized by your employer. That said, in Pennsylvania, a labor contract is almost a necessity in order to provide a productive working atmosphere.
In Arkansas and in Georgia, you have two ‘right to work ‘ states which basically is an entitlement to have a job instead of not having a job and collecting state welfare payments or even unemployment compensation. Even people who are imprisoned are given jobs such as road work or weed cutting, almost anything to occupy and to earn whatever set compensation is allowed according to your circumstance. As far as I recall and this is a distant memory from my Army days at Fort Gordon Georgia, if you collect any state payments, you owe those funds back to the state when you are privately employed again. Of course, exceptions are made for things lie mothers or times when no jobs were readily availble. These terms actually go back to the period called the ‘Reconstruction’. After the Civil War, many workers came from the populated North mostly to escape our colder months. So laws were established to employ people from with in the confines of various states, especially in the South. There is also very ‘regional’ labor laws, again for the most part in the south and the Mid west that do cover compensation for people who are employed seasonably, I.E. harvest time. This allows inhabitants of states access to compensation during times work is scarce with no tax liability.
My point is labor laws do vary according to several factors. Even with the ability to form a collective bargaining unit by any means, the State’s Rights will take predominant precedence over almost every labor law enacted by Congress. This is part of our Constition. State’s rights was teh overwhelming catalyst of our nation’s bloodiest period, The Civil War.
Labor unions are a necessity in most circumstances involving a labor force. To say most employers are against such a force is not completely accurate. With organized labor there is actually an encouraged consolidation of resources you will not find in any one individual. To allow any group of workers the free choice to have a united core should be encouraged whenever possible. This works in so many industries because common goals are achieved by combining resources of working ability.
The other side is simply this. From experience, I can personally tell you that there is absolutely no relationship between certain workers, yet the larger, gigantic union work force attempts to forge a common ground. If a teacher makes $80000 per year and a janitor makes $40000 per year, it seems correct. The teacher’s effort of learning for four or five extra years duly compensates that individual from a person who finished high school and basically does manual labor. Here you have two unions, seperated by an instructional correlation. The janitors union discovered that people who have been earning $12000 per year as a janitor wants to be a part of the good union. Because of a secret ballot, no one wants to anger their employer who pays them $12000 per year. After a rally and a ‘Card-check’ the overwhelming majority want the union because they can and will double that $12000 per year salary. It works and that is a very reasonable figure at $24000 per year. however, there are now three time more union members and 2/3 of them are making $24000 per year. There is not enough money to pay the 2/3 what you are earning at $40000. Well, as a great negotiator, the figure is met half way and everyone is making $32000 per year. It is by the standards of a democracy totally fair to have such compensation because 2/3 said ‘yea’ and only 1/3 disagreed. THe rent in one area is averaging $700 per month. The rent in the other area is about $350 per month on average. A loaf of bread is $1.79 in one town and $2.50 in the other town. None of these factors are part of any negotiation. So these gigantic unions are powerful in their numbers. The more numbers you have the more powerful you are. Thsi is where there exist a problem.
I earn close to $35000 at my job as a School district Maintainance mechanic. i have just over two years of employment and am a proud and vocal union member. I will defend anyone of my brother’s and sister’s in our union whether i agree with them or not. Recently, I inquired about teh same job across the country. I discovered that it started at $50000 per year. I also discovered that the average mortgage rate was four time higher and rent was almost as high. Even a loaf of bread and gallon of milk cost almost twice as much. They have an opposite labor union. Similar to ours. When I inquired as to why the had very little to almost no representation in our state, I was told that our union had too many members here to make an impact. However this union has random and few representation in every state except one.
what I am saying is, Union YES. A united workforce creates quality work. The difference is and always has been dominant with workers who have common goals. Rules are good. Rules are necessary. And if an employer decides to make up the rules as it goes on, the employer will find teh employees just might collectively bargain with you to create rules all can follow, but not without a contract.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think this is a question of “Union Yes” or “Union No.” It’s a question of “Union How?” It seems to me that be best way to assure that people make as pressure-free a choice as possible about whether they want a union in their company is to make their voice known on a secret ballot.